I have the chance to go to Rhode Island's Comic Con and write an article on it for my college's newspaper. The only biggest problem I am facing is that I have no idea what to put in the article. I figured the best way to learn what people want to know about these types of conventions is to ask people interested in these types of conventions. So, what do you guys care about?

"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!" -Socrates

jewish_scientist wrote:I have the chance to go to Rhode Island's Comic Con and write an article on it for my college's newspaper. The only biggest problem I am facing is that I have no idea what to put in the article. I figured the best way to learn what people want to know about these types of conventions is to ask people interested in these types of conventions. So, what do you guys care about?

Are you not interested in these types of conventions yourself? It seems strange to me that you would be writing an article about something that you don't really seem to be invested in.

I thought that the best way to learn how to write this type of article was to read this type of article. The problem was that I was not interested in what the articles had to say. Like, why would I care if so-and-so was signed autographs or if the art section was poorly organized? I cannot go back in time Citation needed to purchase tickets, so why do I care? I would prefer the articles talking about what so-and-so had to say about recent trends in comic-book art or how vendors predict their sales will be affected by poor planning.

This lead me to question if these convention articles actually appealed to their readers. Then again, I could just be an exception and the readership wants to know these things. I figured that the most direct and easiest way to discover which of these options was the case was to asked readers what they wanted to know.

jewish_scientist wrote:Like, why would I care if so-and-so was signed autographs or if the art section was poorly organized?

The people who go to comic cons are often pretty fanatical about them... they want to meet so-and-so and get autographs, or they want to see an awesome art display. And these events aren't exactly cheap, and often involve travel. People want to know, before they make the plans and spend the money, if the event is going to have what they want to see.

I cannot go back in time to purchase tickets, so why do I care? I would prefer the articles talking about what so-and-so had to say about recent trends in comic-book art or how vendors predict their sales will be affected by poor planning.

But those things are totally not the point when it comes to a comic con... you can find that stuff on Google. What you can't do on Google is dress up like your favorite comic book character, go mingle with a hundred people who are just as fanatical as you are, and meet the writers and actors and directors who are behind the thing you're fanatical about.

It's kinda like... if someone went to Space Camp and instead of getting to check out space vehicles and meet with astronauts, they instead got to sit through a series of technical audits and budget meetings. That might appeal to some people I guess, but chances are it's not going to go over well with the typical person who's gonna sign up for Space Camp.

This lead me to question if these convention articles actually appealed to their readers. Then again, I could just be an exception and the readership wants to know these things. I figured that the most direct and easiest way to discover which of these options was the case was to asked readers what they wanted to know.

Generally speaking, the folks who go to comic con want to geek out for a while with their fellow fans, and meet famous and important people in the industry. The articles should convey that sort of spirit. Articles that talk about trends in comic art probably would interest a lot of fans, actually... sales projections probably less so. That isn't to say you couldn't find an audience for an article on how sales will be affected by planning... but it wouldn't be what most comic fans are seeking.

Presumably, everyone who is really passionately interested in a comic con or other pop culture festival per se is already there, experiencing it firsthand. So I think I might be better to approach the article as your take on an anthropological phenomenon--of general interest to human beings, for that reason--not as a preaching-to-the-choir critique.

There's just one of type of fan-convention that I have regularly attended1, and the attraction (on top of the subject matter) is overwhelmingly the people I know I will meet there. I've even deliberately foregone the star-turn signing queues, that some might quite reasonbly say have been key focal points, though enjoyed joining the ones for certain secondary personalities. I people-watch, to some extent, although that might partially be so that I get more chance of recognising fellow veterans amongst the general masses (not that a random general mass isn't also likely to be ready to talk).

And if (these days) there's a game of Cards Against Humanity being organised in some quiet corner, or in my particular twist of a currently static popular programme event queue, count me in!

So… what I'm saying here is that for me, I'd like to know about the people. Maybe their alternate priorities and prefered participation levels, too. Not just "361 days a year, Bob sells double-glazing/Diane is PA to a hospital manager/Richard turns bespoke wooden table-legs/Sam provides a selection of adult services/Stan is currently studying physiotherapy, but for one long weekend this year they…" sort of thing (nice details, but may now be cliched) but something that can perhaps intrinsically do a bit of your work for you in developing the story.

Still possibly Journlistic Cliche 101, because I'm not trained in the art, but (even if I'd probably be a bad subject) it's got to be worth looking into as an approach. Might find you something interesting if you get the right people and get them to say what they think is interesting, then you're getting something at one or other level of meta-interesting. Is that vaguely doable, within your working remit?

1 I tried, but failed, to attend a Star Trek convention, once, for complex reasons tied to (ironically enough) a sense of social awkwardness overwhelming the useful. I arrived at the venue doors and chickened out.<…beat…>I know!

Why don't you just attend, and see it first hand, and quit trying to understand it vicariously. Either you'll get the point, or you won't. But surely after you go you will have something worth saying about the experience. It doesn't seem that you have experienced anything that geeky.

I remember going to the first showing of the Empire Strikes Back, and seeing people in full costume waiting to see the film. My base personality would have never let me do that. But there was a certain sense of joy in seeing that level of intensity. Have a good time.

cphite wrote:People want to know, before they make the plans and spend the money, if the event is going to have what they want to see.

The problem is that these article are written after the event. If they came out before, then I would understand.

What you can't do on Google is dress up like your favorite comic book character, go mingle with a hundred people who are just as fanatical as you are, and meet the writers and actors and directors who are behind the thing you're fanatical about.

Are you saying that you would want to hear about the most impressive cosplays and most popular attractions in this type of article?

morriswalters wrote:It doesn't seem that you have experienced anything that geeky.

I have been to comic book and anime conventions before. What excited me the most was the availability of comic books and manga I could buy. Usually I would burn through all of my money*, then sit down with my back against the wall reading. I could definitely write a piece on how cool it is to read about characters that are walking by and how nice it reals the have my concentration broken by a Pokemon battle. However, I do not know if that is what my audience would like to read about.

* This is actually what I do whenever I buy something from a book store.

"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!" -Socrates

There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

jewish_scientist wrote:The problem is that these article are written after the event. If they came out before, then I would understand.

After that event. But many conventions happen multiple times a year, and experiences will be similar. Even the ones that happen once a year, will happen next year. Even the ones that are a one-off will have similarities with other upcoming events in terms of organisers/exhibitors/target audience.

cphite wrote:People want to know, before they make the plans and spend the money, if the event is going to have what they want to see.

The problem is that these article are written after the event. If they came out before, then I would understand.

Yeah, but these events are often annual, and they're usually fairly consistent in terms of who is running them.

What you can't do on Google is dress up like your favorite comic book character, go mingle with a hundred people who are just as fanatical as you are, and meet the writers and actors and directors who are behind the thing you're fanatical about.

Are you saying that you would want to hear about the most impressive cosplays and most popular attractions in this type of article?

I personally would be more interested in the thing about trends in comic art; but yeah, most of the folks who frequent these events would enjoy reading about the most impressive costumes, the displays, and so forth. Also, what celebrities were there and what they talked about, etc.

morriswalters wrote:It doesn't seem that you have experienced anything that geeky.

I have been to comic book and anime conventions before. What excited me the most was the availability of comic books and manga I could buy. Usually I would burn through all of my money*, then sit down with my back against the wall reading. I could definitely write a piece on how cool it is to read about characters that are walking by and how nice it reals the have my concentration broken by a Pokemon battle. However, I do not know if that is what my audience would like to read about.

Oops. I did not realize what N&A meant, so I had to guess what the post was about given context clues.

I do see the argument that this belongs in the School section. However, I decided that to put this in the News and Articles section, because it is about what the ideal article of a particular topic be. In addition, this question is indirectly related to school by the fact that the paper I am writing for is associated with a school. If this article was being written for an independent blog, there would be no argument that this question belongs in this section.

"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!" -Socrates

Soupspoon wrote:(I chortled, at the misunderstanding.)Best guess, on my part, is that a question about making a news article obviously should be in News & Articles, one might imagine…

cphite wrote:

Liri wrote:why the h**k is this in N&A

Because he's asking about an article?

Most of the discussions in this sub-forum are about articles after they've been written; he's discussing his before it was written. Just a matter of timing.

The way I see it, it's not just timing: most discussions in N&A are about the subject of the article, not about the article itself. This is one level more meta than the norm. (Actually it's now two levels more meta, because we're discussing the discussion of the process of writing an article about a thing).

I wanna know when they gonna stop sexualizing womens all over the places? And when nerd boys gonna openly accept LGBT women/girls in their groups? Or stop perving on teenage girls? Or stop harassing female artists for not representing All Feminists? And women do that too to female comics artists. Most Most of all... when are they gonna have fat, or poor, or ugly or disabled or cray cray not in a laughing lunatic yet in a REALISTIC Crazy way men, boys, women and girls? We wanna know these questions about comic cons.

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

As soon as they realize they're not unpopular and shunned because they have "weird" likes, but they're unpopular and shunned because they're shitty people AND have a desire to no longer be shitty people.

So never.

heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.

heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

Then I ain't dressin' up like nice, nice Catholic schoolgirl Witch Huntress Robin for them. And they can have fantasies about the manga/comic all they wanna... and wanna see me dress up like a redheaded witch lady... and I'll just laugh and... burn them w/lighters? I dunno. Comics are truly very hostile to ladies like me. And. I never ever see any transgender superheroines and if they are it's b/c of some trauma, or someone raped them, or they grow to love love the bodies they used to hate hate somehow? At least. Okay. I haven't actually read ANY stories like that in comics... no TG girls to choose from to read such stories about whether they accept or hate their bodies... no realistic cray cray girls just laughing lunatics like the fucking Joker. Comics teach girls to be skinny-waist, anorexic, sexually abused, helpless damsels in distress to get male attentions and it's just sick sick wrong wrong and comics need to change so ALL WOMEN are represented even those w/the "wrong body parts/biology for the jobs." Comic nerds need to grow up and stop idolizing the Shiva damned fifties. </3

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

As long as one realises that the Comic Code Authority (I think it is) was a huge barrier against getting LGBTQ++ characters into (mainstream!) comics for years. They are arising now, but obviously the whole canons of DC and Marvel can't be Trans-washed in one fell swoop.

UM. They're comics. Not legal decisions. So at any time Clark could become Carlotta or Lois could become Louis. It's not... impossible... for them to change the stuffs they wrote. Anyways whatever after the huge lectures I've been given for inappropriately sharing details of my personal life I'm hesitant about even saying any more.

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

I was merely suggesting that there's movement. But (back to the Magic discussion, almost) there has to be good cause or logic behind a change so drastic. And so many directions have needed servicing. More afro-american heroes (Isiah Bradley - "first black (alternate) Captain America"), practicing Muslim (Ms. Marvel incarnate as Kamala Khan), Straight-swap (non-TG) gender flips like Lady Thor (or copious simultaneous distaff versions like the various She-Hulks), etc. That's apart from limited-treatment alt-histories like the Russia-raised Red Son of Krypton version of Superman.

Pick a cause, in your case TG, and it can be done, but what would be the rationale behind just going "Clarke Kent is now Clarissa, Bruce Wayne is now Bruceah, Arthur Curry is now Agnes, Flash Gordon is now Flick, Brian Braddock is now Brenda", etc, outside of a whole-universe-reboot scenario (which fans always complain about) and which would also require David Prince to take on the Wonder WoMan mantle, or somesuch (complicated by there already being a Wonder Man, but skipping over that for now).

It likely can be done, it probably should be done (somewhere, can't guarantee Supes will be the one), but your wishes alone aren't the driving force. Petitioning the comics to ignore every other cry for change (or to not change!) but enact yours is no good, only groundswell murmerings tend to change such mass consumer products (against other groundswell murmerings of all kinds, more conservative, more revolutionary or just… differently focussed from yourself) and I don't think any of your words here are going to filter out and change the balance and direction of changes by any measurable amount 'where it matters'.

That's as far as I'm going on comics. I am no expert on which artists/writers/publishers might be close to rebrand a major publication, I don't even keep up with a majority of the current pantheons save by drive-by research (there's Alysia Yeoh, to watch; new character, don't know if she's going to be a Cape or Mask at all) and my involvement in Comicons is also more sideline than active. It's a very broad church, a Comicon, and even if the core event doesn't have big full on rainbow-flag-flying featurettes, the cosplay participation is famous for some brazenly artistic re-genderings (of characters or those playing the characters, depending on the intentions of the attendees involved).

As to you…

Spoiler:

…, it's when it's off-topic that is the 'problem'. I've seen your username aside threads I don't read (not enough time, can't imagine I can helpfully contribute) that your personal revelations are relevent to. Like me, you do still seem to stream-of-consciousness it a bit, when writing, and especially when you think something is anti-you (often it isn't, it's just not supportive, but then it isn't a support-type thread) I can see the raw emotions come out into the text.

I can't help you with much of that (like I also have no idea about that Gorgon thing in the desert who does lightning, so I read and moved on) thus maybe the similar reception in these other places. Not helped when you state your intention to bow out from a diversion, then bow back in again (says I, also a prolific diverter, at times, occasionally aware of it, occasionally a repeat offender of it) that makes its mental mark.

Don't stop being you (or the you that you want to be), just think about how we might variously think about you in return, ok?

Maybe I misinterpreted the thing about Clark Kent transforming into Wonder Woman, but I like the idea for a superhero character who is one sex in their ordinary secret identity life and another in their caped persona. I can see a lot of different ways it could be done, each with their own interesting social commentary.

The person's superpower could be to transform into a specific super-being, who is of a different sex than themselves, and they have to deal with being a different sex whenever they want to use their powers, and however that makes them feel.

Or the activation of the superpowers could allow for transformation into whatever form the user wants, or perhaps some kind of uncontrolled projection of their internal self-image, and the user wants to be another sex than they are in their ordinary life, so when they power-on they get to be, but they can't stay powered-on all the time and just use their powers to transition in their ordinary life, so they're still however they were born day-to-day, but when they power on they become how they'd really like to be, for so long as they can maintain their powered state.

Soupspoon wrote:Pick a cause, in your case TG, and it can be done, but what would be the rationale behind just going "Clarke Kent is now Clarissa, Bruce Wayne is now Bruceah, Arthur Curry is now Agnes, Flash Gordon is now Flick, Brian Braddock is now Brenda", etc, outside of a whole-universe-reboot scenario (which fans always complain about)

Bigoted fans that hate on TG girls can go to... and who cares if they cry? The comics shall get new, younger fans, they always do. So I see No Excuses to leave TG girls, women, boys and men in the cold like they do. OTHER than prejudice. And Pfhorrest's superheroine idea be pretty good actually kudos to him or her a lot. <3

Spoiler:

I only came back to N and A or ANYWHERE on here because... I have no friends, my family hates me, and everyone in my life thinks I'm just too inappropriate. So fine. I agreed to stop chattering so much about nothing femininely. Let's see if I can actually do that? AND MW need to quit talking at me if he don't wanna hear me respond. Same goes to ANY OF Y'ALL here: If you hate me and wanna hear me not talk anymore so much then LEAVE ME ALONE AND QUIT TALKING TO ME.

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

Pfhorrest wrote:Maybe I misinterpreted the thing about Clark Kent transforming into Wonder Woman, but I like the idea for a superhero character who is one sex in their ordinary secret identity life and another in their caped persona. I can see a lot of different ways it could be done, each with their own interesting social commentary.

Yes, this is what I meant: not literally (or not necessarily) Clark Kent and Wonder Woman, but somebody who transitions when they transform, as it were.

It struck me that transitioning is right there at the centre of the superhero universe already, and also I wondered whether maybe the way in which the character becomes their most powerful self in the transition could be a good metaphor for how a trans person might feel when they are able to dress and express themselves as their true gender. There's something of being "in the zone"/"in the flow state" about superheroes: we all get to transform from time to time, when we suddenly realise we're doing something really well and effortlessly that on another day would be difficult and unsatisfactory. I imagine that it's particularly difficult to get in the zone whilst having to present oneself as the "wrong" gender.

But I'm pretty much 100% cis myself, and my only trans or nonbinary friends are on these fora, so apologies if any of the above is wide of the mark.

Anyway, I love where you took it, which is way beyond what I'd thought about!

Soupspoon wrote:Pick a cause, in your case TG, and it can be done, but what would be the rationale behind just going "Clarke Kent is now Clarissa, Bruce Wayne is now Bruceah, Arthur Curry is now Agnes, Flash Gordon is now Flick, Brian Braddock is now Brenda", etc, outside of a whole-universe-reboot scenario (which fans always complain about)

Bigoted fans that hate on TG girls can go to... and who cares if they cry?

Stopping the quote right there. Before I read on, I want to make clear that "fans always complain about" whole-universe-reboot scenarios of any kind. That's not "Bigoted fans that hate on TG girls" (though they may exist) that's basically every fan who is already invested in the current state of the universe and would be equally unhappy if now everyone was now somehow Asian (except those who already were!) or canine (ditto!) or just replaced with a yet another New Generation due to yet another superhero pantheon kill-off event.

Please don't read so much into what I (or others) say. If I'm not entirely "yes go ahead, let's change it all!", I'm still not averse to some changes to address a lag behind social reality, and yet I keep seeing you assuming otherwise by default. Take a deep breath and consider this, please. As I took a deep breath before even trying this reply. (And various other replies, and PMs to, written but not sent over the last week or so. If you're reading this, I've finally done it.)

Now another breath, and I'll read the rest of what you say.

Ok, arrived back in an edit: Still reading?

Spoiler:

If you read what I've said as "talking at you" then one of us has gotten it wrong, maybe a both. It could be a bad mix of active and passive verbs, or it could a variant of mansplaining (cisplaining?), though I've never had such complaints before by the various IRL/online trans individuals I have known. In my own mind I'm being reasonable, but then what unreasonable person truly realises to what extent they are in error? Talk to me in a PM if you want to discuss this, it is nowhere near Comic-Con business. Comic characters themselves sort of are, of course, but it's still a diversion from the RL mass-meetup thing. Maybe there's a better thread for pure on-page realities?

I did consider that you were being non-offensive and I'm not offended at YOU. Anyone, that says, they would be "unhappy" with TG peoples in their favorite stories make me flare up my passions and anger problems. So I'm not trying to berate you, I don't think you said, "Keep TG girls/boys/men/women in the cold weather." I just think that anyone who objects to some transgender characters, even like Clark Kent deciding to become Carlotta, would be doing so based primarily in prejudice. Ditto if Gidget came and said, "You don't wanna be dogs? TOO BAD. We're all dogs!" Or if they were Asian. The only possible objections to those that I can see are: They are racist against dogs/Asians or trans- or homophobic... they're heavily invested in their series w/a lot of emotional energy... or they're freaks that think THEIR preferences should be in comics only. And I didn't say it should only be TG girls and young women ALL THE TIME. I just said if Clark became Carlotta I wouldn't freak the F bomb out and neither should any fans. It's Clark's/Carlotta's fucking choice--or his/her writers--and it's not... impossible... to change writings. Actually it's very super easy and I've changed my own works billions of times.

Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.

Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

Changing established characters on a whim is just tokenism of the worst sort. Especially if there's no real indication of why such a change would take place. Why would Clark suddenly transition to Carla. There has been zero indication of any type of dysphoria or any inkling of him being transgender. Sure some writing could come out and do it, but honestly it'd be for shock value. I could see some characters where they could work it in, particularly shapeshifters like Mystique or something. But otherwise it's going to take a bunch of hoops to jump through that will be unpalatable to most readers.

Things like switching Thor to a woman or having a black Captain America is different. These are new people taking on someone else's job/mantle. Frankly it's also likely a publicity stunt thing, but I can get behind these ones because at least they can make sense (depending on the writers). This method of "replacing" characters with distinct other characters who are minorities is much more palatable than any ad hoc changing of an existing character just to pander to that respective audience.

Chen wrote:Changing established characters on a whim is just tokenism of the worst sort. Especially if there's no real indication of why such a change would take place. Why would Clark suddenly transition to Carla. There has been zero indication of any type of dysphoria or any inkling of him being transgender. Sure some writing could come out and do it, but honestly it'd be for shock value. I could see some characters where they could work it in, particularly shapeshifters like Mystique or something. But otherwise it's going to take a bunch of hoops to jump through that will be unpalatable to most readers.

Things like switching Thor to a woman or having a black Captain America is different. These are new people taking on someone else's job/mantle. Frankly it's also likely a publicity stunt thing, but I can get behind these ones because at least they can make sense (depending on the writers). This method of "replacing" characters with distinct other characters who are minorities is much more palatable than any ad hoc changing of an existing character just to pander to that respective audience.

It's not an artists job to be politically or socially inclusive. They generally create what they enjoy or what sells (both if they're lucky).If LGBT+ artists want diversity in the arts then they are responsible for creating it or financially backing it.

The only people who are truly excluded from representation of their views are the poor and talentless.

Chen wrote:Things like switching Thor to a woman or having a black Captain America is different. These are new people taking on someone else's job/mantle. Frankly it's also likely a publicity stunt thing, but I can get behind these ones because at least they can make sense (depending on the writers). This method of "replacing" characters with distinct other characters who are minorities is much more palatable than any ad hoc changing of an existing character just to pander to that respective audience.

I agree that pandering to tokenism is not the answer. What is? More new transgendered women in comics. New, better transgender superheroines. I was just using Clark/Carla as an example only. In the case of altering beloved established characters. I just wouldn't freak out, I wouldn't accuse them of political aims b/c... they wanna see girls like them in their soap operas on pages too, which is the only thing the comics industry should be doing fairly representing all peoples.

In the comics, apparently. I'm none too happy with that either. Not helped by the fact that the original Thor was... Thor.

Basically, whoever wields Mjolnir (if they be worthy enough to do so) has the power of Thor, and so is Thor, but the first person to wield Mjolnir and have the power of Thor and so be Thor was... Thor.